I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are going to propose a definition for a class in a lawsuit, the first rule is to make sure that the definition includes you. A plaintiff seems to have made that mistake, which is why a District Court judge in Florida has denied her motion to certify the class — the third such time the motion has been submitted.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Gartrell v. J.J. Marshall & Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant seeking to collect on an unpaid debt even though the defendant was allegedly not licensed to collect in the state. Having received the letter, the plaintiff said it made her upset and stressed and was intimidated by it. While she didn’t make a payment on the debt, she likely would have done so had she not contacted an attorney. The initial complaint sought to include anyone in Florida who received such a letter from the defendant. After a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue, an amended complaint was filed, this time adding those who made a payment on the debt to the class definition of people in Florida who received a letter from the defendant.
The problem, if you read the preceding paragraph carefully, is that the plaintiff did not make a payment on the debt. The plaintiff argued that she could still serve as the lead plaintiff because she received a letter just like everyone else in the class.
“On the plain reading of her proposed class, ‘[a]ll persons … who received at least one collection letter who thereafter made a payment to JJ Marshall on the debt referenced in the collection letter,’ she is not a member of the proposed class and cannot be its class representative,” noted Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. “The class, as proposed, cannot be certified.”
